C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT › PART 10—CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, AS AMENDED › Subpart G—Appeals Process

20 C.F.R. § 10.600

How can final decisions of OWCP be reviewed?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

There are three methods for reviewing a formal decision of the OWCP (§§ 10.125 through 10.127 discuss how decisions are made). These methods are: reconsideration by the district office; a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative; and appeal to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB). For each method there are time limitations and other restrictions which may apply, and not all options are available for all decisions, so the employee should consult the requirements set forth below. Further rules governing appeals to the ECAB are found at part 501 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Nurriddin v. Acosta, 327 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nurriddin v. Acosta, 327 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 10.600 . "A claimant may also challenge an ECAB decision by petitioning for reconsideration.”
Nurriddin v. Perez (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “On this record,8 it is clear Nurriddin has no colorable constitutional claim because, in both instances, he was afforded the opportunity to challenge OWCP’s decision using the administrative review procedures available under FECA—reconsideration, hearing, or ECAB appeal, 20…”
Lori Ponce v. U.S. Gov't, 639 F. App'x 511 (9th Cir. 2016). “2460 (detailing the Social Security process), with 20 C.F.R. § 10.600 et seq. (detailing FECA process).”
Lori Ponce v. U.S. Gov't, 667 F. App'x 921 (9th Cir. 2016). “2460 (detailing the Social Security process), with 20 C.F.R. § 10.600 et seq. (detailing FECA process).”
Broughton v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2019). “C § 7703(b) (Merit Systems Protection Board); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.600 , 501.6(d) (workers’ compensation); Shinnecock Indian Nation v.”
Edwards v. United States (D.D.C. 2020). “” 20 C.F.R. § 10.600 . Significantly for present purposes, Congress has made it crystal clear that OWCP’s act of “allowing or denying a payment” is both “final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact[,]” and is “not subject to review by…”
Est. of Williams By & Through Williams v. Brennan, 371 F. Supp. 3d 343 (N.D. Miss. 2019). “§ 8102 (a) ; 20 C.F.R. 10.600 (Specifically noting the OWCP's denial of benefits as a "final denial").”
Diaz v. United States (D. Maryland 2023). “” 20 C.F.R. § 10.600 . Of relevance here, Congress made clear that the DOL’s determination of “allowing or denying a payment” is both “final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact[,]” and “not subject to review by another official of…”
Morton v. DeJoy (E.D. Va. 2024). “3d at 151 (explaining that compensation decisions are appealed to the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board, whereas restoration of rights issues are appealed to the MSPB (first citing 20 C.F.R. § 10.600 ; and then citing 5 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.